Examine individual changes

'{{Transitivity and Valency}} {{Short description|Number of arguments controlled by a linguistic predicate}}In [[linguistics]], '''valency''' or '''valence''' is the number of [[verb argument|arguments]] controlled by a [[predicate (grammar)|predicate]], [[content verb]]s being typical predicates. Valency is related, though not identical, to [[subcategorization]] and [[transitivity (grammar)|transitivity]], which count only [[object (grammar)|object]] arguments – valency counts all arguments, including the [[subject (grammar)|subject]]. The linguistic meaning of valency derives from the definition of [[valency (chemistry)|valency]] in [[chemistry]]. The valency metaphor appeared first in linguistics in [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]'s essay "The Logic of Relatives" in 1897,<ref>Przepiórkowski (2018) investigates the origins of the valency metaphor in linguistics. He points out that Peirce's use of the valency metaphor is overlooked, [[Lucien Tesnière]] being incorrectly credited with having introduced the notion into linguistics.</ref> and it then surfaced in the works of a number of linguists decades later in the late 1940s and 1950s.<ref>Przepiórkowski (2018) documents that in addition to Peirce and Tesnière, three other linguists employed the metaphor roughly around the same time as Tesnière: the Soviet linguist Solomon Davidovič Kacnel’son (1948), the Dutch linguist Albert Willem de Groot(1949), and the American linguist Charles Hockett (1958).</ref> [[Lucien Tesnière]] is credited most with having established the valency concept in linguistics.<ref>Tesnière devotes a lengthy and detailed chapter to presenting and exploring the valency concept in his book ''Éléments de Syntaxe structurale'' (''Elements of Structural Syntax'') (1959).</ref> A major authority on the valency of the English verb is Allerton (1982), who made the important distinction between semantic and syntactic valency. ==Types== There are several types of valency: #impersonal (=avalent) ''it rains'' #intransitive (monovalent/monadic) ''he sleeps'' #transitive (divalent/dyadic) ''he kicks the ball'' #ditransitive (trivalent/triadic) ''he gave her a flower'' #tritransitive (quadrivalent/quadradic) ''I bet him a dollar on a '''kowsika''' *an [[impersonal verb]] has no determinate subject, e.g. ''It rains.'' (Though ''it'' is technically the subject of the verb in English, it is only a [[dummy pronoun|dummy subject]]; that is, a syntactic placeholder: it has no concrete referent. No other subject can replace ''it''. In many other languages, there would be no subject at all. In Spanish, for example, ''It is raining'' could be expressed as simply ''[[:wikt:llueve|llueve]]''.) *an [[intransitive]] verb takes one argument, e.g. ''He¹ sleeps.'' *a [[transitive verb|transitive]] verb takes two, e.g. ''He¹ kicked the ball².'' *a [[ditransitive]] verb takes three, e.g. ''He¹ gave her² a flower³.'' * There are a few verbs that take four arguments; they are [[tritransitive]]. Sometimes ''bet'' is considered to have four arguments in English, as in the examples ''I¹ bet him² five quid³ on ”The Daily Arabian”⁴'' and ''I¹ bet you² two dollars³ it will rain⁴.'' However, since the latter example can be restated as ''I¹ bet you² two dollars³'' without becoming ungrammatical, the verb ''bet'' is not considered to be a true tritransitive verb{{citation needed|date=September 2019}} (that is, the clause ''it will rain'' is an [[Adjunct_(grammar)|adjunct]], not an [[Argument_(linguistics)|argument]]). Languages that mark arguments morphologically can have true "tritransitive" verbs, such as the [[causative]] of a ditransitive verb in [[Abaza language|Abaza]] (which incorporates all four arguments in the sentence "He couldn't make them give it back to her" as pronominal prefixes on the verb).<ref>Dixon, R. M. W. (2000). A Typology of Causatives: Form, Syntax, and Meaning. In [[Robert M. W. Dixon|R. M. W. Dixon]] & [[Alexandra Aikhenvald|A. Y. Aikhenvald]] (Eds.), ''Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity'' (pp. 30-41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.</ref>^{: p. 57} The term '''valence''' also refers to the syntactic category of these elements. Verbs show considerable variety in this respect. In the examples above, the arguments are [[noun phrase]]s (NPs). But arguments can in many cases be other categories, e.g. :'''Winning the prize''' made our training worthwhile. <small>– Subject is a non-finite verb phrase</small> :'''That he came late''' did not surprise us. <small>– Subject is a clause</small> :Sam persuaded us '''to contribute to the cause'''. <small>– Object is a non-finite verb phrase</small> :The president mentioned '''that she would veto this bill'''. <small>– Object is a clause</small> Many of these patterns can appear in a form rather different from the ones just shown above. For example, they can also be expressed using the passive voice: :Our training was made worthwhile (by winning the prize). :We were not surprised (by the fact that he came late). :We were persuaded to contribute (by Sam). :That she would veto this bill was mentioned (by the president). The above examples show some of the most common valence patterns in English, but do not begin to exhaust them. Other linguists{{Who|date=May 2016}} have examined the patterns of more than three thousand verbs and placed them in one or more of several dozen groups.<ref>Concerning the valency patterns, see Levin (1993).</ref> The verb requires all of its arguments in a well-formed sentence, although they can sometimes undergo valency reduction or expansion. For instance, ''to eat'' is naturally divalent, as in ''he eats an apple'', but may be reduced to monovalency in ''he eats''. This is called ''valency reduction''. In the southeastern United States, an emphatic trivalent form of ''eat'' is in use, as in ''I'll eat myself some supper''. Verbs that are usually monovalent, like ''sleep'', cannot take a direct object. However, there are cases where the valency of such verbs can be expanded, for instance in ''He sleeps the sleep of death.'' This is called ''valency expansion''. Verb valence can also be described in terms of syntactic versus [[Semantics|semantic]] criteria. The syntactic valency of a verb refers to the number of dependent arguments that the verb can have, while semantic valence describes the [[thematic relation]]s associated with a verb. ==Compared with subcategorization== Tesnière 1959<ref>The quotation is from Tesnière (1959/69:238).</ref> expresses the idea of valence as follows (translation from French): :"One can therefore compare the verb to a sort of atom with bonds, susceptible to exercising attraction on a greater or lesser number of actants. For these actants, the verb has a greater or lesser number of bonds that maintain the actants as dependents. The number of bonds that a verb has constitutes what we will call the '''valence''' of the verb." Tesnière used the word ''actants'' to mean what are now widely called [[Argument (linguistics)|argument]]s (and sometimes [[Complement (linguistics)|complement]]s). An important aspect of Tesnière's understanding of valency was that the subject is an actant (=argument, complement) of the verb in the same manner that the object is.<ref>Tesnière (1959/69:109) emphasizes that the subject is a complement just like the object in chapter 51, paragraph 109.</ref> The concept of [[subcategorization frame|subcategorization]], which is related to valency but associated more with [[phrase structure grammar]]s than with the [[dependency grammar]] that Tesnière developed, did not originally view the subject as part of the subcategorization frame,<ref>Concerning an early and prominent account of subcategorization, see Chomsky (1965).</ref> although the more modern understanding of subcategorization seems to be almost synonymous with valency. ==Changing valency== Most languages provide a means to change the valency of verbs.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hovdhaugen, Even |first1=and Ulrike Mosel |title=Samoan Reference Grammar |date=1992 |publisher=Scandinavian University Press |location=Oslo |page=729}}</ref> There are two ways to change the valency of a verb: reducing and increasing.<ref name=DixAikh1997>[[R. M. W. Dixon|Dixon, R. M. W.]] & [[Alexandra Aikhenvald]] (1997). "A Typology of Argument-Determined Constructions. pp 71–112 of Bybee, Joan, John Haiman, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.)(1997). ''Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón''. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.</ref>{{rp|72}} Note that for this section, the labels S, A, and P will be used. These are commonly used names (taken from [[morphosyntactic alignment]] theory) given to [[argument (linguistics)|arguments]] of a verb. S refers to the [[subject (grammar)|subject]] of an [[intransitive verb]], A refers to the [[agent (grammar)|agent]] of a [[transitive verb]], and P refers to the [[patient (grammar)|patient]] of a [[transitive verb]]. (The patient is sometimes also called undergoer.) These are '''core''' arguments of a verb: *''Lydia'' (S) ''is sleeping.'' *''Don'' (A) ''is cooking dinner'' (P). Non-core (or peripheral) arguments are called [[Oblique argument|obliques]] and are typically optional: *''Lydia is sleeping '''on the couch'''. *''Don is cooking dinner '''for his mom'''. ===Valency-reducing=== Reducing valency involves moving an argument from the core to oblique status. The [[passive voice]] and [[antipassive voice]] are prototypical valency reducing devices.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|72}} This kind of derivation applies most to [[transitive verb|transitive]] clauses. Since there are two arguments in a transitive clause, A and P, there are two possibilities for reducing the valency: :1. A is removed from the core and becomes an oblique. The clause becomes intransitive since there's only one core argument, the original P, which has become S. This is exactly what the [[passive voice]] does.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|73}} The semantics of this construction emphasizes the original P and downgrades the original A and is used to avoid mentioning A, draw attention to P or the result of the activity.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|474}} :::(a) ''Don'' (A) ''is cooking dinner'' (P). :::(b) ''Dinner'' (S) '' is being cooked ''('''''by Don'''''). :2. P is moved from the core and becomes an oblique. Similarly, the clause becomes intransitive and the original A becomes S.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|73}} The semantics of this construction emphasizes the original A and downgrades the original P and is used when the action includes a patient, but the patient is given little or no attention.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|474}} These are difficult to convey in English. :::(a) ''Don'' (A) ''is crushing a soda can'' (P). :::(b) ''Don'' (S) ''is crushing.'' [with the implication that a soda can is being crushed]. ::Note that this is not the same as an [[ambitransitive verb]], which can be either intransitive or transitive (see criterion 4 below, which this does not meet). There are some problems, however, with the terms ''passive'' and ''antipassive'' because they have been used to describe a wide range of behaviors across the world's languages. For example, when compared to a canonical European passive, the passive construction in other languages is justified in its name. However, when comparing passives across the world's languages, they do not share a single common feature.<ref name=Siewierska>Siewierska, Anna (1984). ''Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis''. London: Croom Helm.</ref>{{rp|255}} [[R. M. W. Dixon]] has proposed four properties of passives and antipassives.<ref name=Ergativity>[[R. M. W. Dixon|Dixon, R.M.W.]] (1994). ''Ergativity''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>{{rp|146}} # They apply to underlying transitive clauses and form a derived intransitive. # The underlying P of the passive and A of the antipassive become S. # The underlying A of the passive and P of the antipassive go into the periphery and are marked by a non-core case/preposition/etc. These can be omitted, but there's always the option of including them. # There is some explicit marking of the construction. He acknowledges that this excludes some constructions labeled as "passive" by some linguists. Other ways to reduce valency include the [[Reflexive verb|reflexives]], [[Reciprocal (grammar)|reciprocals]], [[Direct–inverse language|inverse constructions]], [[Voice (grammar)#Middle|middle voice]], [[object demotion]], noun [[Incorporation (linguistics)|incorporation]], and object incorporation.<ref name=Morphosyntax>Payne, Thomas E. (1997). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=LC3DfjWfCiwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists]''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>{{rp|196–222}} ===Valency-increasing=== This involves moving an argument from the periphery into the core. [[Applicative voice|Applicatives]] and [[causative]]s are prototypical valency increasing devices.<ref name=DixAikh1997/>{{rp|73}} ==In syntactic theory== Valence plays an important role in a number of the syntactic frameworks that have been developed in the last few decades. In [[generalized phrase structure grammar]] (GPSG),<ref>Concerning GPSG, see Gazdar et al. (1985).</ref> many of the phrase structure rules generate the class of verbs with a particular valence. For example, the following rule generates the class of transitive verbs: ::VP → H NP [love] H stands for the [[Head (linguistics)|head]] of the VP, that is the part which shares the same category as the VP, in this case, the verb. Some linguists objected that there would be one such rule for every valence pattern. Such a list would miss the fact that all such rules have certain properties in common. Work in [[government and binding]] (GB)<ref>The classical work in GB is Chomsky (1981).</ref> takes the approach of generating all such structures with a single schema, called the [[X-bar theory|X-bar schema]]:<ref>A classic work establishing the X-bar schema is Jackendoff (1977).</ref> ::X′ → X, Y″... X and Y can stand for a number of different lexical categories, and each instance of the symbol ′ stands for a bar. So A′, for instance, would be a kind of AP (adjective phrase). Two bars, used here for the complements, is thought by some linguists to be a maximal projection of a lexical category. Such a schema is meant to be combined with specific lexical rules and the ''projection principle'' to distinguish the various patterns of specific verbs. [[Head-driven phrase structure grammar]] (HPSG)<ref>The classic work of HPSG is Pollard and Sag (1994).</ref> introduces a handful of such schemata which aim to subsume all such valence related rules as well as other rules not related to valence. A network is developed for information related to specific lexical items. The network and one of the schemata aims to subsume the large number of specific rules defining the valence of particular lexical items. Notice that the rule (VP → H NP [love]) and the schema (X′ → X, Y″...) deal only with non-subject complements. This is because all of the above syntactic frameworks use a totally separate rule (or schema) to introduce the subject. This is a major difference between them and Tesnière's original understanding of valency, which included the subject, as mentioned above. One of the most widely known versions of [[construction grammar]] (CxG)<ref>A seminal work for the development of CxG is Goldberg (1995).</ref> also treats the subject like other complements, but this may be because the emphasis is more on semantic roles and compatibility with work in [[cognitive science]] than on syntax. ==See also== {{div col|colwidth=22em}} *[[Argument (linguistics)|Argument]] *[[Arity]] *[[Case grammar]] *[[Dependency grammar]] *[[Grammatical conjugation]] *[[Lucien Tesnière]] *[[Morphosyntactic alignment]] *[[Phrase structure grammar]] *[[Subcategorization]] *[[Transitivity (grammar)|Transitivity]] *[[Verb]] {{div col end}} ==Notes== {{Reflist|30em}} ==References== {{refbegin|2}} * Allerton, D. J. 1982. Valency and the English verb. London: Academic Press. * Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. * Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. * de Groot, A. W. 1949. Structurele Syntaxis. Den Haag: Servire. * Fischer, K. and V. Ágel. 2010. Dependency grammar and valency theory. In: The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 223–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press. * Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum, and I. Sag. 1984. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. * Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. * [[Martin Haspelmath|Haspelmath, Martin]] & Thomas Müller-Bardey. (2000). Valence change. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan. (Eds.). ''Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation''. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. * Hockett, C. F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. * Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. * Kacnel’son, S. D. 1987. K ponjatiju tipov valentnosti. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 3, 20–32. * Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. * Operstein, Natalie & Aaron Huey Sonnenschein. (Eds.). (2015). ''Valence Changes in Zapotec: Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology''. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. * Przepiórkowski, Adam. (2018). [http://nlp.ipipan.waw.pl/Bib/prze:18:li.pdf The origin of the valency metaphor in linguistics]. ''Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 41''(1), 152–159. * Peirce, C. S. 1897. [http://www.unav.es/gep/LogicOfRelatives.pdf The logic of relatives]. The Monist VII(2), 161–217. * Pollard, C. and [[Ivan Sag|I. Sag]]. 1994. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ftvg8Vo3QHwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=valence&f=false Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. * Tesnière, L. 1959. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. * Tesnière, L. 1969. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale, 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck. {{refend}} ==External links== * [http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic99/herbst/main1.html English Valency Structures – A first sketch] * [http://www.inst.at/trans/15Nr/04_09/fesenko_alina15.htm The difference between lexical and grammatical valency] * [http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOflinguisticTerms/WhatIsValency.htm What is valency?] * [http://www.patternbank.uni-erlangen.de/cgi-bin/patternbank.cgi Erlangen Valency Patternbank] {{DEFAULTSORT:Valency (Linguistics)}} [[Category:Syntactic relationships]] [[Category:Semantics]] [[Category:Grammatical categories]] [[Category:Transitivity and valency| ]]'